This is obviously another ridiculous effort by a UN body to commemorate the notion of another 'Freedom' which nobody cares about and which doesn't really matter.

Except that it isn't.

Donald Tr ump's efforts to demonise the MSM as 'fake news' has had support on this very forum and the belief that the press lies routinely has the capacity to undermine legitimate stories and promote bizarre conspiracy theories about 911 being a false flag exercise or that vaccinations cause autism.

In these days where anyone can set up a blog to peddle whatever agenda they wish, the MSM is facing contracting funding and pressure to cut costs.

Tabloids like the Sun and the Mirror are prone to bend or omit facts to push a particular agenda (It was the Sun wot won it) and to a degree we acknowledge the bias and we inform our judgement of the story in question with our knowledge of that bias.

The MSM, however, needs to be reliable. If they are caught out (as the South African edition of the Huffinton Post was the other day) it reflects badly on that particular publication. So every time they are seen to have lied or misrepresented facts their own credibility suffers, and with it their own value as a news source.

I don't think it's fair to say the the MSM "lies on a daily basis" as one poster on here claimed and I believe that this kind of statement fundamentally undermines a crucial element of a democratic society; a free press.

This article explains it very well, albeit from a South African perspective.

I don't think it's fair to say the the MSM "lies on a daily basis" as one poster on here claimed and I believe that this kind of statement fundamentally undermines a crucial element of a democratic society; a free press.

The media cannot be seen to be lying because it obviously undermines their credibility. Without their credibility they are unreliable and if they're unreliable, then they're of very little practical use.

The press have a vital role to play in a democracy because they keep the voters informed and the politicians honest. Did you read my link to the piece about journalists in South Africa risking their lives and turning down bribes of millions (admittedly in Rands) in order to maintain their journalistic integrity?

By all means, examine any article you read and test it against whatever measurement you have for the truth, but to blithely declare that the media "lies on a daily basis" undermines that. Beside which you have not provided any valid example (apart from a report that claimed that CNN had been censured by a judge for malicious reporting, which turned out not to be true and a panel member offering an opinion) despite the claim that the press lied on a daily basis in the lead up to Trum p's election, in which case there should be hundreds of example.

But to dismiss the MSM as routinely lying devalues the valuable work done by investigative journalists.

Moreover, when you undermine the MSM, you reduce it to the level of the various other outlets which carry no such imperative to be truthful in their message.

Organisations like the BBC or CNN have access to political figures and sources close to the news story because of their status as prominent and trusted outlets. They have professional staff who are trained to get the story and present it in a cogent way and professional analysts who are trained to read the signs, make judgements based on those signs and interpret them for us.

It worries me that public opinion can be manipulated by the simple creation of a couple of fake news sites and a few thousand fake Twitter accounts as Bell Pottinger have shown us. (I'm deliberately not using the American political example out of deference to the delicate sensitivities regarding President Tr ump that some posters have shown!)

To some up, we need the MSM to be reliable and trustworthy. It is in their own interests to be truthful in as far as they can because they cannot afford to be caught out lying.

The undermining of respected news outlets as "fake news" and the continuing rise of social media in the forming of opinion is certainly new, especially on the scale we have seen recently.

Perhaps you'd like to furnish us with examples?

I'm saying fake news is not a new phenomenon. Newspapers have written all sorts of bollocks over the years to generate interest in a story, sell copy, improve their bottom lines or advance a narrative that corresponds to their editorial stance/political slant.

The undermining of respected news outlets as "fake news" and the continuing rise of social media in the forming of opinion is certainly new, especially on the scale we have seen recently.

Perhaps you'd like to furnish us with examples?

I'm saying fake news is not a new phenomenon. Newspapers have written all sorts of bollocks over the years to generate interest in a story, sell copy, improve their bottom lines or advance a narrative that corresponds to their editorial stance/political slant.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that tabloid journalism is necessarily the same phenomenon. Or, if it is, it has escalated dramatically in the last year or so.

Certainly I remember a front page from the Sunday Sport which showed a double-decker bus on the moon, but I'm not sure that you could say that it was "news" although there may be a case for calling it "fake news".

However, when you read the Sun or the Daily Mail or the Sunday Sport for that matter, your judgement on how credible a story is is informed by the reputation of that publication. If CNN or the BBC develop a reputation for peddling lies, then they cease to be a credible source and will serve no function.

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

24/7 news cycle and social media have had a major impact on veracity in journalism. Like the plums from media outlets calling Phil the Greeks death last night way before any release from Buckingham Palace. If I was the plum in charge, discrepancies in the media would be dealt with like speeding fines..... demerit points for not checking source and validating stories before broadcast/print/Twitter. Rate media outlets on their veracity and if they keep f**king up they get a downgraded broadcast rating and fine..... fudge em.... there will also be massive posters of my image and nightly propaganda messages on telly from your truly.... you're welcome.

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

There's your problem, the bolded bits.

It's a debate.

I'm open to suggestions on why you think I'm wrong, which is why I made clear that this was my opinion.

Just saying "you're wrong" might give you satisfaction, but it doesn't actually take anything forward.

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

Fake news is a lot like your posts on PR - a repetitive slant on something that is palpably untrue or unbalanced/unfair, but creates and air of being oh, so PC !!

Seriously though : People are getting tired of media lies and the endless mispresentation. Well, I am, and was for the past fifty years..

The media cannot be seen to be lying because it obviously undermines their credibility. Without their credibility they are unreliable and if they're unreliable, then they're of very little practical use.

The press have a vital role to play in a democracy because they keep the voters informed and the politicians honest. Did you read my link to the piece about journalists in South Africa risking their lives and turning down bribes of millions (admittedly in Rands) in order to maintain their journalistic integrity?

By all means, examine any article you read and test it against whatever measurement you have for the truth, but to blithely declare that the media "lies on a daily basis" undermines that. Beside which you have not provided any valid example (apart from a report that claimed that CNN had been censured by a judge for malicious reporting, which turned out not to be true and a panel member offering an opinion) despite the claim that the press lied on a daily basis in the lead up to Trum p's election, in which case there should be hundreds of example.

But to dismiss the MSM as routinely lying devalues the valuable work done by investigative journalists.

Are you really this naive. The media lie non stop. They are no more than a means for the elite to promote their agenda's (more money and more power). This applies to every country in the world.

The real issue though is naive brainwashed children who don't realize this.

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

There's your problem, the bolded bits.

It's a debate.

I'm open to suggestions on why you think I'm wrong, which is why I made clear that this was my opinion.

Just saying "you're wrong" might give you satisfaction, but it doesn't actually take anything forward.

Firstly, IMO, Donald and Brexit are not examples of the rejection of rational media as per your claim, because there are a myriad of other factors also at play (eg. disillusioned voters, scepticism due to events occurring confirming media bias, economic hardships, security scares, etc.). The fact that these people support alternative media, is because of said factors - not the other way around. Of course a percentage of them are totally irrational, but they are definitely a minority, IMO. However, the MSM regularly try and depict them as the majority in order to obfuscate their own bias.

Secondly, there will also be some segment of society who will discount expert analysis, again due to a couple of reasons: eg. ignorance, dogmatism, being of a contrarian disposition, religion, etc. I am sure very few posters on this bored fall into this category. Again, the MSM, IMO sometimes try to highlight these fringe individuals as being the norm which they are evidently not.

So I take it you feel that coverage of the election in no way influenced the Presidential election?

You claim that the MSM lied on a daily basis, yet you cannot show any examples. Clearly you have arrived at that opinion from somewhere and I would suggest that you probably got that impression from various blogs and social media.

The commonly held presumption is that the Clintons and their Foundation are corrupt, yet when you ask for evidence nothing is forthcoming, people just read it online or on facebook or on twitter.

Stories proliferated about Hillary Clinton taking pleasure in getting a child rapist off on a technicality when fact was that, as a State appointed defence lawyer she was merely fulfilling her legal duty.

The media cannot be seen to be lying because it obviously undermines their credibility. Without their credibility they are unreliable and if they're unreliable, then they're of very little practical use.

The press have a vital role to play in a democracy because they keep the voters informed and the politicians honest. Did you read my link to the piece about journalists in South Africa risking their lives and turning down bribes of millions (admittedly in Rands) in order to maintain their journalistic integrity?

By all means, examine any article you read and test it against whatever measurement you have for the truth, but to blithely declare that the media "lies on a daily basis" undermines that. Beside which you have not provided any valid example (apart from a report that claimed that CNN had been censured by a judge for malicious reporting, which turned out not to be true and a panel member offering an opinion) despite the claim that the press lied on a daily basis in the lead up to Trum p's election, in which case there should be hundreds of example.

But to dismiss the MSM as routinely lying devalues the valuable work done by investigative journalists.

[Redacted - insert normal Silver bullshit in here]

I say again. If the MSM are caught lying it undermines their entire reason for existing.

We need our news sources to be trustworthy so that we can be better informed. If they cannot be trusted then there is no reason to use them and they become useless. So it's in their own interests to be as accurate as they can possibly be.

If you have examples of the MSM lying, by all means let us have them. Don't ask me to take your word for it. And don't then call me naive when I don't.

So I take it you feel that coverage of the election in no way influenced the Presidential election?

You claim that the MSM lied on a daily basis, yet you cannot show any examples. Clearly you have arrived at that opinion from somewhere and I would suggest that you probably got that impression from various blogs and social media.

The commonly held presumption is that the Clintons and their Foundation are corrupt, yet when you ask for evidence nothing is forthcoming, people just read it online or on facebook or on twitter.Stories proliferated about Hillary Clinton taking pleasure in getting a child rapist off on a technicality when fact was that, as a State appointed defence lawyer she was merely fulfilling her legal duty.

I could give you plenty more examples.

Hillary laughed about this case. Hillary is scum. And her foundation was a corrupt sham. And a corrupt, rotten system (including a corrupt, lying media) allows her to get away with it. Why not just accept this rather than naively pretending that the West is run by saints.

Now this doesn't mean I think Russia and Putin (or Trump) are saints. Or the alt-media publishes the truth and nothing but.

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

Fake news is a lot like your posts on PR - a repetitive slant on something that is palpably untrue or unbalanced/unfair, but creates and air of being oh, so PC !!

Seriously though : People are getting tired of media lies and the endless mispresentation. Well, I am, and was for the past fifty years..

Funny, for some reason, I thought this would be a more hotly debated topic, given the rise of Donald T (sorry Satan!) and Breixt, both events, in my opinion, being largely the result of a rejection of rational media in favour of the gutter press and social media.

It seems that there is a tendency to discount any expert analysis as intrinsically manipulative because any expert is viewed as having a particular agenda; otherwise why would he become an expert in the first place?

There's your problem, the bolded bits.

It's a debate.

I'm open to suggestions on why you think I'm wrong, which is why I made clear that this was my opinion.

Just saying "you're wrong" might give you satisfaction, but it doesn't actually take anything forward.

Firstly, IMO, Donald and Brexit are not examples of the rejection of rational media as per your claim, because there are a myriad of other factors also at play (eg. disillusioned voters, scepticism due to events occurring confirming media bias, economic hardships, security scares, etc.). The fact that these people support alternative media, is because of said factors - not the other way around. Of course a percentage of them are totally irrational, but they are definitely a minority, IMO. However, the MSM regularly try and depict them as the majority in order to obfuscate their own bias.

Secondly, there will also be some segment of society who will discount expert analysis, again due to a couple of reasons: eg. ignorance, dogmatism, being of a contrarian disposition, religion, etc. I am sure very few posters on this bored fall into this category. Again, the MSM, IMO sometimes try to highlight these fringe individuals as being the norm which they are evidently not.

With all due respect, I don't see much to debate here.

and also because so called expert analysis is often used by a corrupt elite to promote their agenda. That is for more and more and more money and power. At our expense.

Its time for the children to wake up. We are no better than debt and tax slaves. with a small number having all the money and power. And the rest working like slaves just to make ends meet. Where have are all the benefits gone from recent massive technology improvements. Young kids today in the West have less chance to get ahead than 50 years back.

So I take it you feel that coverage of the election in no way influenced the Presidential election?

You claim that the MSM lied on a daily basis, yet you cannot show any examples. Clearly you have arrived at that opinion from somewhere and I would suggest that you probably got that impression from various blogs and social media.

The commonly held presumption is that the Clintons and their Foundation are corrupt, yet when you ask for evidence nothing is forthcoming, people just read it online or on facebook or on twitter.Stories proliferated about Hillary Clinton taking pleasure in getting a child rapist off on a technicality when fact was that, as a State appointed defence lawyer she was merely fulfilling her legal duty.